Restarting HS2a

[AlexSJW]

If you want to do the Stafford bypass the sensible thing is to stick with the right of way set aside for HS2 phase 2a and to do at least the bottom 3/4s.

Not really. If HS2 services at Handsacre are extended a short distance to connect directly with the Colwich–Stone line, and operate as a through route rather than a speed-reducing branch, this enables a grade-separated connection south of Stone to rejoin the WCML north of Norton Bridge. That southern connection is operationally fundamental, as it allows Manchester-bound services to diverge from Liverpool and Scottish services at an appropriate point south of Stone, rather than forcing all long-distance flows through Crewe.

This service separation is essential to efficient network operation. Manchester services already have a suitable and resilient corridor via Stoke, whereas Liverpool and Scottish services are structurally dependent on the Colwich-Crewe axis. By dividing these flows south of Stone, fast intercity services can be distributed across the network in a way that maximises capacity, and timetable flexibility. This outcome cannot be achieved under the HS2 Phase 2a design, which would route Manchester services unnecessarily via Crewe, introducing additional conflicting movements and compounding capacity pressures at a location where those services are not required.

From a value-for-money perspective, the Handsacre to Stone through connection with WCML link would deliver the key network benefits associated with Phase 2a - namely removal of fast services from the constrained WCML south of Norton Bridge - at significantly lower capital cost, reduced delivery risk, and with fewer environmental and consenting challenges. It therefore represents a more proportionate and targeted response to the underlying capacity and performance constraints.

Given that the Phase 2a alignment has now been cancelled and that HS2 Phase One services will already have high-speed intercity operation, there is limited practical justification for revisiting a large-scale Crewe-oriented solution. A focused intervention that aligns service routing with actual network need provides a clearer strategic fit with current GBR objectives around affordability, operational simplicity and whole-network optimisation.

 

[Krokodil]

If you reduce the speed, reduce the price and add at least one stop then to be fair it is quite different.

If needed as well as the vertical curves being larger a higher gradient of up to 3.5% can also be used like LGV Sud Est. You could even go to 4% like Frankfurt Cologne.

You aren't going to save any costs if you mess with the alignment.

 

[Snow1964]

You aren't going to save any costs if you mess with the alignment.

There is a trade off though, if already bought a lot of the land for Hansacre-Crewe, then dumping it cheap, and buying up another strip of land might be worse value than saving a bit on earthworks.

I don't know how much of the route was actually bought, but think I have heard figures of something like 250 parcels of land already bought (including those for now killed Eastern leg)

 

[MatthewHutton]

You aren't going to save any costs if you mess with the alignment.

I am not suggesting changing the horizontal alignment so additional land purchases shouldn’t be needed.

Perhaps some land no longer being tunnelled under would need to be purchased. But presumably that would be cheaper than tunnelling - if it isn’t you can still do the tunnel!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2026 ==

Not really. If HS2 services at Handsacre are extended a short distance to connect directly with the Colwich–Stone line, and operate as a through route rather than a speed-reducing branch, this enables a grade-separated connection south of Stone to rejoin the WCML north of Norton Bridge. That southern connection is operationally fundamental, as it allows Manchester-bound services to diverge from Liverpool and Scottish services at an appropriate point south of Stone, rather than forcing all long-distance flows through Crewe.

This service separation is essential to efficient network operation. Manchester services already have a suitable and resilient corridor via Stoke, whereas Liverpool and Scottish services are structurally dependent on the Colwich-Crewe axis. By dividing these flows south of Stone, fast intercity services can be distributed across the network in a way that maximises capacity, and timetable flexibility. This outcome cannot be achieved under the HS2 Phase 2a design, which would route Manchester services unnecessarily via Crewe, introducing additional conflicting movements and compounding capacity pressures at a location where those services are not required.

From a value-for-money perspective, the Handsacre to Stone through connection with WCML link would deliver the key network benefits associated with Phase 2a - namely removal of fast services from the constrained WCML south of Norton Bridge - at significantly lower capital cost, reduced delivery risk, and with fewer environmental and consenting challenges. It therefore represents a more proportionate and targeted response to the underlying capacity and performance constraints.

Given that the Phase 2a alignment has now been cancelled and that HS2 Phase One services will already have high-speed intercity operation, there is limited practical justification for revisiting a large-scale Crewe-oriented solution. A focused intervention that aligns service routing with actual network need provides a clearer strategic fit with current GBR objectives around affordability, operational simplicity and whole-network optimisation.

Ok fair. But then presumably the most sensible way to achieve that is that you follow the phase 2a route with a modification of additional access to the Colwich-Macclesfield line.

 

[Snow1964]

Ok fair. But then presumably the most sensible way to achieve that is that you follow the phase 2a route with a modification of additional access to the Colwich-Macclesfield line.

Exactly, no point in terminating the line just before a bottleneck, build an extra section with spurs to existing line.

The French had same problem, originally TGV Est phase 1 was only going to Vandiers (where there are spurs north and south to existing line) but soon realised extending phase 1 to the spurs at Baudrecourt was much better as it allowed trains to continue east. Especially if timeline for next section of line is at best few years away (or vague if it ever happens)

In same way extending HS2 to more useful spurs means can utilise phase 1 better, ending near Baldwins Gate, with a spur to Colwich-Macclesfield line gives much more options for trains going north. Personally if these were built, I would suggest saving money not building a Hansacre spur too.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Personally if these were built, I would suggest saving money not building a Hansacre spur too.

You could do a spur onto the freight only line north of Lichfield Trent valley instead which would allow some services to run to the East Midlands. That is already 60mph, so isn’t slow and the mainline is 125mph.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2026 ==

Exactly, no point in terminating the line just before a bottleneck, build an extra section with spurs to existing line.

I suspect it was political to force phase 2a to be built. Of course the costs got so out of control phase 2a was cancelled.

Not having to do any changes to Crewe station would save a bunch of money as well. So that would be a good position to be in.

 

[Nottingham59]

Exactly, no point in terminating the line just before a bottleneck, build an extra section with spurs to existing line.

That does have merit, but extending phase 2a (to Hixon, or Baldwin's Gate, or to the outskirts of Crewe) will only add about 2tph to the capacity of the system. Crewe-Weaver is full, as are lines through the south Manchester Suburbs. Where will these extra trains go? The only real benefit from building 2a will be a massive increase in the capacity for freight to access the yards at Basford Hall.

If you do the sums, extending platforms at Crewe, Preston, Carlisle etc to 400m is the most cost-effective way to increase the capacity of Phase 1, followed by adding 400m platforms at Manchester Piccadilly.

Building the 6x400m HS2 station in Manchester would cost £1-2bn, plus around £500m to build a viaduct to connect that station to the existing Piccadilly throat at Ardwick. That is a lot less than building phase 2a.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Building the 6x400m HS2 station in Manchester would cost £1-2bn, plus around £500m to build a viaduct to connect that station to the existing Piccadilly throat at Ardwick. That is a lot less than building phase 2a.

If we are going for sensible costs for extra platforms at Manchester Piccadilly (which I support) then we can also go for sensible costs for phase 2a - which is probably £1-2bn.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2026 ==

as are lines through the south Manchester Suburbs.

I am not convinced the capacity constraint isn’t Manchester Piccadilly there.

I mean based off Chiltern timetabling you could run a half hourly (or nearly half hourly - I.e. 25-35) Stoke Manchester local service on top of 20/40 Avanti and 30/30 Cross Country now with the bad old rolling stock. And certainly with the greater reliability from HS2 it will be possible.

 

[Krokodil]

Manchester Piccadilly.

Building the 6x400m HS2 station in Manchester would cost £1-2bn, plus around £500m to build a viaduct to connect that station to the existing Piccadilly throat at Ardwick.

Would there be grade separation? Current London/Birmingham services leave from the middle of the station, which allows them to go straight onto the fast lines with the minimum of conflict. Presumably those 400m platforms cannot go in the same place so how do you intend to connect them exactly without compromising an already congested throat?

 

[MatthewHutton]

Would there be grade separation? Current London/Birmingham services leave from the middle of the station, which allows them to go straight onto the fast lines with the minimum of conflict. Presumably those 400m platforms cannot go in the same place so how do you intend to connect them exactly without compromising an already congested throat?

Presumably you put them underground like at Antwerpen Centraal? I mean I was kinda assuming that if you are going to spend maybe £2bn.

 

[The Planner]

I mean based off Chiltern timetabling you could run a half hourly (or nearly half hourly - I.e. 25-35) Stoke Manchester local service on top of 20/40 Avanti and 30/30 Cross Country now with the bad old rolling stock. And certainly with the greater reliability from HS2 it will be possible.

How? Northern can only run the extra local if XC are routed via Crewe.

 

[JamesT]

Presumably you put them underground like at Antwerpen Centraal? I mean I was kinda assuming that if you are going to spend maybe £2bn.

You're not getting an underground station for £2bn. Even HS2's design for an above-ground station is £7bn (though I'm not sure how much of the approaching tracks and tunnels that includes). Andy's Burnham's through underground stations has been estimated at £12bn.

 

[Nottingham59]

Would there be grade separation? Current London/Birmingham services leave from the middle of the station, which allows them to go straight onto the fast lines with the minimum of conflict. Presumably those 400m platforms cannot go in the same place so how do you intend to connect them exactly without compromising an already congested throat?

My thinking is that I'd put the HS2 trains (3tph from London, 2tph from Curzon St) into Platforms A, B, C and terminate everything coming in from Guide Bridge or Marple into platforms D, E, F.

A scissors crossover halfway along platforms E and F would allow double stacking of trains on those two platforms.




A 400m-long four-track viaduct from the Piccadilly approach viaduct to Ardwick Junction, as shown above, could be built on land already earmarked for HS2/NPR. It would separate Guide Bridge / Marple trains from WCML traffic. And still allow the HS2 tunnel to be built at a later date.

If any more capacity were neeed, that can be added by converting Glossop and Marple routes to Metrolink, and diverting that traffic away from Piccadilly.

There are cheaper options for converting platform 1 and a new platform 0 at Piccadilly to 400m. See here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/how-to-add-400m-platforms-to-manchester-piccadilly.261998/

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2026 ==

You're not getting an underground station for £2bn. Even HS2's design for an above-ground station is £7bn (though I'm not sure how much of the approaching tracks and tunnels that includes). Andy's Burnham's through underground stations has been estimated at £12bn.

Old Oak Common station is a 6-plaform underground station in a box and cost £1.7bn at 2019 prices.

 

[AlexSJW]

Ok fair. But then presumably the most sensible way to achieve that is that you follow the phase 2a route with a modification of additional access to the Colwich-Macclesfield line.

A preliminary quick assessment indicates that through the HS2 connection from Handsacre to the Colwich–Stone line would require approximately 11 miles of new alignment. A further grade-separated connection from south of Stone to rejoin the WCML north of Norton Bridge would require in the order of a further five miles of new track infrastructure. In total, this represents a relatively limited extent of greenfield construction when set against the scale of the network benefits delivered.

This configuration would remove London and Birmingham intercity services bound for Manchester from the WCML entirely, delivering capacity and performance improvements on the core route, while enabling effective separation of Manchester services from Liverpool and Scottish services. The resulting service pattern aligns more closely with corridor capability and forecast demand growth, particularly in the context of increased freight flows associated with the Port of Liverpool and potential Parkside development.

By contrast, HS2 Phase 2a - now formally cancelled with no published indication of reinstatement - would have routed Manchester services onto a two-track high-speed line towards Crewe, despite the availability of a suitable alternative shorter corridor via Stoke. This would introduce additional capacity pressure at Crewe, increase conflicting movements, and fail to deliver the same level of whole-network capacity release on the WCML. As such, the Handsacre-Stone through connection with a WCML link, a Stafford bypass that also splits traffic, represents a more proportionate, lower-risk, and operationally effective solution.

 

[Richardr]

The tabloids aren't bright enough to recognise that a "Stafford Bypass" is HS2 2A in all but name.

Newspapers, TV, and other news sources wouldn't know themselves. Such stories are fed to them by politicians, special interest groups, NIMBYs etc.

 

[MatthewHutton]

A preliminary quick assessment indicates that through the HS2 connection from Handsacre to the Colwich–Stone line would require approximately 11 miles of new alignment. A further grade-separated connection from south of Stone to rejoin the WCML north of Norton Bridge would require in the order of a further five miles of new track infrastructure. In total, this represents a relatively limited extent of greenfield construction when set against the scale of the network benefits delivered

Yeah buts it’s only another 10 miles onto Baldwins Gate (I.e 26-28 in total) and you can follow the existing planned out alignment to get there.

At sensible costs that like another £500m or something in todays money.

 

[Krokodil]

A 400m-long four-track viaduct from the Piccadilly approach viaduct to Ardwick Junction, as shown above, could be built on land already earmarked for HS2/NPR. It would separate Guide Bridge / Marple trains from WCML traffic.

So it would be grade seperated. I would be amazed if you could get all that for £2bn.

Old Oak Common station is a 6-plaform underground station in a box and cost £1.7bn at 2019 prices.

On a brownfield site, not underneath an operational 14 platform terminal.

Newspapers, TV, and other news sources wouldn't know themselves. Such stories are fed to them by politicians, special interest groups, NIMBYs etc.

Politicians and NIMBYs aren't too bright either.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Newspapers, TV, and other news sources wouldn't know themselves. Such stories are fed to them by politicians, special interest groups, NIMBYs etc.

We can talk to the politicians too. But we have to get to a reasonable place on cost.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2026 ==

So it would be grade seperated. I would be amazed if you could get all that for £2bn

The Swedes, Belgians and Japanese definitely could.

We have to learn from our neighbours if we want this stuff to happen.

 

[Krokodil]

The Swedes, Belgians and Japanese definitely could.

Are there any post-pandemic/Russian invasion examples?

 

[MatthewHutton]

Are there any post-pandemic/Russian invasion examples?

The data from the transit costs project who have looked at this globally appears to show that prices have increased somewhat since the pandemic, but that doesn’t justify e.g HS2 phase 2a costing 10x or more what our peers spent 10-20 years ago adjusted for general inflation.

We are straying off topic I feel but Osakas new limited express platforms were only £350m at market exchange rates with 2.5km of tunnelling, maybe £800m PPP adjusted for inflation and maybe £2.4bn scaled for 6 platforms and 400m platforms.

 

[AlexSJW]

Yeah buts it’s only another 10 miles onto Baldwins Gate

Hand-waving. That is a lot of money for not much at all. The cost of that may finish Liverpool's metro after 45 years.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Hand-waving. That is a lot of money for not much at all. The cost of that may finish Liverpool's metro after 45 years.

I think the M6 parkway station between Stoke and Stone and the parking charges would pay for it. And you can’t do that if you change the alignment to go to Norton Bridge.

 

[Nottingham59]

On a brownfield site, not underneath an operational 14 platform terminal.

You misunderstand. I'm proposing new platforms on the brownfield site of the HS2 station, entirely separate from Piccadilly, and at the same elevation as the main shed. I really don't see any need to go underground in Manchester.

 

[AlexSJW]

The tabloids aren't bright enough to recognise that a "Stafford Bypass" is HS2 2A in all but name.

An approximately 11-mile extension of HS2 infrastructure from Handsacre to the Stone line in the vicinity of Hixon, combined with a further connection of around five miles from south of Stone to rejoin the WCML north of Norton Bridge, would together create a highly cost-effective Stafford bypass. The scale of new construction is limited, yet the resulting network benefits are significant and disproportionate to the mileage involved.

Critically, this configuration enables the separation of long-distance intercity flows before Stone, with Manchester-bound services diverging from Liverpool and Scottish services at an operationally appropriate location. This removes Manchester intercity traffic from the Crewe corridor entirely, materially reducing congestion and conflicting movements on the WCML where future growth pressures - particularly freight and Liverpool-focused services - are expected to concentrate.

This outcome is fundamentally different from HS2 Phase 2a. Phase 2a would have routed Manchester services onto a two-track high-speed alignment towards Crewe, introducing additional pressure at a constrained node and failing to achieve early flow separation. By contrast, the Handsacre–Hixon–Stone–Norton Bridge configuration aligns service routing delivering greater whole-network capacity release, and does so with significantly lower cost and delivery risk. It should therefore be treated as a distinct, targeted network intervention rather than a surrogate for the cancelled Phase 2a scheme.

 

[Nottingham59]

An approximately 11-mile extension of HS2 infrastructure from Handsacre to the Stone line in the vicinity of Hixon, combined with a further connection of around five miles from south of Stone to rejoin the WCML north of Norton Bridge, would together create a highly cost-effective Stafford bypass. The scale of new construction is limited, yet the resulting network benefits are significant and disproportionate to the mileage involved.

I don't think you need the extension at Stone back onto the WCML if you keep the Handsacre junction.

Critically, this configuration enables the separation of long-distance intercity flows before Stone, with Manchester-bound services diverging from Liverpool and Scottish services at an operationally appropriate location. This removes Manchester intercity traffic from the Crewe corridor entirely, materially reducing congestion and conflicting movements on the WCML where future growth pressures - particularly freight and Liverpool-focused services - are expected to concentrate.

Agreed. It drops the Manchester bound HS2 trains neatly onto an under-utilised 125mph railway in Hixon which is on the fastest route to Manchester. It could carry 4tph if it used the current Avanti and Cross Country paths from Stoke to Piccadilly.

This outcome is fundamentally different from HS2 Phase 2a. Phase 2a would have routed Manchester services onto a two-track high-speed alignment towards Crewe, introducing additional pressure at a constrained node and failing to achieve early flow separation. By contrast, the Handsacre–Hixon–Stone–Norton Bridge configuration aligns service routing delivering greater whole-network capacity release, and does so with significantly lower cost and delivery risk. It should therefore be treated as a distinct, targeted network intervention rather than a surrogate for the cancelled Phase 2a scheme.

I'd say just do it to Hixon in the first instance. But at the point of divergence from the 2a alignment run the two tracks at a elevation difference of around 6m, so that the HS2 mainline could continue straight on at a later date, keeping to its 400kph design speed.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I'd say just do it to Hixon in the first instance. But at the point of divergence from the 2a alignment run the two tracks at a elevation difference of around 6m, so that the HS2 mainline could continue straight on at a later date, keeping to its 400kph design speed.

Handsacre to Crewe is what 60km? At 400km/h that takes 9 minutes, at 300km/h it takes 12. Who cares about 3 minutes off trip times?

 

[AlexSJW]

I'd say just do it to Hixon in the first instance. But at the point of divergence from the 2a alignment run the two tracks at a elevation difference of around 6m, so that the HS2 mainline could continue straight on at a later date, keeping to its 400kph design speed.

I don't think you got it. It is extending from Handsacre and completing a Stafford bypass. With a great advantage of splitting traffic before Stone and removing Manchester bound trains from the WCML entirely. Done. The most important flows are to Liverpool, Lancashire and Scotland. No need to even think of the the 2a alignment as it is officially dead.

Extending the HS2 track from Handsacre 11 miles to Hixon is extra expense only improving matters slightly for one city. This is a political no, no, and pretty well little value from it. Completing the full Stafford bypass to join the WCML north of Norton Bridge building only around 5 miles of track over fields, gives the full scheme.

 

[MatthewHutton]

How? Northern can only run the extra local if XC are routed via Crewe.

Given this is one of the key wins of HS2 phase 2a just to show it can be done without:

Stop	XC 1	London 1	Stopping 1 (Skips Adlington and Prestbury)	London 2 (with extra stop)	XC 2	Stopping 2
Stoke	00	04	08	28	31	35
Macclesfield	16.5	20.5	30	-	47.5	57
Stockport	30	34	50	54	01	20
Manchester Piccadilly (a)	39.5	43.5	00	03.5	10.5	30

 

[Nottingham59]

Handsacre to Crewe is what 60km? At 400km/h that takes 9 minutes, at 300km/h it takes 12. Who cares about 3 minutes off trip times?

The overall impact of a 300kph speed restriction in a 400kph alignment is actually quite a lot more than that. The HS2 trains will take over 5 minutes and cover nearly 30km in the time it takes them to accelerate from 300kph to their maximum speed of 360kph. Any future train accelerating to 400kph will take even longer to get back up to speed.

I don't think you got it. It is extending from Handsacre and completing a Stafford bypass. With a great advantage of splitting traffic before Stone and removing Manchester bound trains from the WCML entirely.

But just extending to Hixon removes Manchester bound trains from the WCML entirely. And you only need land already bought or safeguarded with compulsory purchase powers already in law (apart from a chord at Hixon which could be done with TWAO purchase.)

You could add a Stone-Norton Bridge/WCML link later. Wouldn't you say that trying to build a whole new railway on a new alignment just adds to the project risk? Without Manchester bound trains Colwich will have enough capacity to start with.

The most important flows are to Liverpool, Lancashire and Scotland. No need to even think of the the 2a alignment as it is officially dead.

London to Manchester is 4000pax/d; Liverpool: 1950; Glasgow: 750. Manchester is the most important flow

 

[MatthewHutton]

The overall impact of a 300kph speed restriction in a 400kph alignment is actually quite a lot more than that. The HS2 trains will take over 5 minutes and cover nearly 30km in the time it takes them to accelerate from 300kph to their maximum speed of 360kph. Any future train accelerating to 400kph will take even longer to get back up to speed.

Somewhere or other they will be accelerating from 200km/h to full speed. I am not sure it matters much where.

And reducing the speed down to the speeds our continental neighbours have used makes it deliverable rather than not deliverable.